Households’ Involvement in the Preparation of Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Performance of Tanzania Conditional Cash Transfer Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poverty has been identified as one of the challenges affecting communities in developing countries. The Conditional Cash Transfer project was introduced in Tanzania aiming at poverty reduction among households. On that note, this study was conducted to assess the extent to which households’ involvement in the preparation of Monitoring and Evaluation plan influenced the performance of Tanzania Conditional Cash Transfer project. Descriptive cross-sectional and correlational research designs were used with the support of a pragmatic paradigm. By using Yamane’s (1967) formula, a sample size of 400 respondents was obtained from a target population of 61,240 households. Data was collected through administered questionnaires, key in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. The findings established a significant influence between households’ involvement in the preparation of Monitoring and Evaluation plan (t= 2.769, p-value = 0.006) on the performance of Tanzania Conditional Cash Transfer project. It was concluded that households’ involvement in the preparation of Monitoring and Evaluation plan played a significant role in the performance of Tanzania Conditional Cash Transfer project. Therefore, project implementers should review the Monitoring and Evaluation policy in order to incorporate households in the preparation of Monitoring and Evaluation plan for influencing the performance of the Tanzania Conditional Cash Transfer project.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".